What is your schedule?

[Gearmunky]

Guys thanks again for all of your input, looks like I got the job so far. Hopefully it's all paperwork from here. The schedule is not bad considering I'm part-time.

 

[NorskAir]

hawkerflyer,

sorry, not looking for any hawker guys at the moment, actually we are selling one of our XP's, taking delivery of a Challenger 300 in Dec.

 

[hawkerflyer]

Thanks anyway, NorskAir. Good luck and stay safe.

 

[PGH STEEL]

You can have my schedule 7 on 7 on !!!!

 

[AnimalMother]

27/7 doesnt work guys!!!! stop these greedy 135ers.

This issue is very well settled. The greatest difficulty is finding Chief Legal Counsel interpretations online. They just aren't available. Probably be a good thing to suggest to the FAA to improve upon. Regardless, they can be found at a limited number of law libraries, the FAA in DC, and a smattering of law firms across the country.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...e=1999_register


The foregoing is a link to 64 Federal Register 32176 (June 15, 1999). It states, in part, "The FAA has consistently interpreted section 121.471(b) and section 135.265(b) to mean the certificate holder and the flight crewmembers must be able to look back over the 24 consecutive hours preceeding the scheduled completion of the flight segment and find the required scheduled rest period. This interpretation of rest also has been applied to pilots on `reserve time.' Reserve time while not defined in 14 CFR [the FARs] is generally understood to be a period of time when a flight crewmember is not on duty but must be available to report upon notice for a duty period. Thus, a flight crewmembers (sic) on reserve could not take a flight assignment, and the certificate holder could not schedule that crewmember for a flight assignment unless the flight crewmember had a scheduled rest period such that at the end of the flight segment one could look back 24 hours and find the requirement (sic) amount of rest."

Another useful link is www.alpa.org. On the public section of the website there is a very good duty and rest handbook in pdf format.

Unfortunately, the issues of duty and rest applicable to FAR 135 operators are misunderstood throughout the industry. Nonetheless, the FAA's position on the matter is very clear. The present regulations governing the operation of 135 unscheduled carriers were adopted in 1985. The enforcement of these regulations has been spotty at best. Nonetheless, a body of law developed from the time of the adoption of the current regulations concerning duty and rest which holds the time a pilot is "on call" or "on reserve" cannot be included in calculating compliance with the look back rest provisions of FAR 135.267(d). On June 15, 1999, the FAA issued a "notice of enforcement policy" reiterating its longstanding interpretations of the duty and rest rules and putting 135 operators and pilots alike on notice of the FAA's intent to vigorously enforce these rules.

After publication of the "notice of enforcement policy," a group of about 50 on-demand charter operators formed a trade association called "Aviator for Safe and Fairer Regulation" and brought suit in federal court against the FAA seeking to enjoin enforcement of the duty and rest requirements. The court, in that case, found in favor of the FAA and upheld the principal that being on call, with a responsibility to report and fly, does not constitute rest.

The bottom line is that you may not include the time spent on call as rest for purposes of determining whether you are in compliance with the look back provisions of FAR 135.267(d). You should not accept a 135 trip assignment if the scheduled cumulative on call time and duty time exceeds 14 hours. Obviously, if you are assigned a 91 trip, this rule is inapplicable. However, upon implementation of 91K, which I believe takes effect December 17, 2004, the same general limitation will apply under either 91K or 135.

Fortunately, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century included a whistleblower protection provision. This provision protects you from discrimination by your employer for alleging a regulatory violation to either your employer or the FAA. It is a unique provision in that it involves OSHA and the FAA in conducting an investigation into any allegation of retaliatory conduct against an employee of an air carrier under both 121 and 135. The Whistleblower Protection Act can be found at http://www.oalj.dol.gov/public/wblo...air21sec519.htm

To boost your confidence, please look at my citations. Most of these are readily available on the internet with the exception of the Chief Legal Counsel Opinions which will require tracking down a law library. Perhaps more importantly, my present employer, a small fractional, charter, management company with 4 light jets and 1 mid-size jet, when presented with this information, grudgingly conceded our on call time could not be included in calculating rest.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.



# 50 Federal Register 29306 (July 19, 1985).

# "The FAA has consistently interpreted its `rest' requirements to be satisfied only if the rest time is determined prospectively, is continuous, is free from all duty and restraint, and is free from the responsibility to work should the occasion arise. A period of time during which a pilot has a present responsibility for work, if called, does not qualify as a rest period." Federal Aviation Decisions: Chief Counsel Opinions, Interpretation 1993-9, pp. I-129, I-130. "`Rest' requirements are satisfied only if the rest time is determined prospectively, is continuous, is free from all duty and restraint, and is free from the responsibility to work should the occasion arise; thus, a period during which a crewmember is on a beeper in case a trip comes up does not qualify as a rest period." Federal Aviation Decisions: Chief Counsel Opinions, FAD Digest of Interpretations, FAR 135.263(b), Interpreration 1993-9, pp. I-129, I-130. "Reserve duty is not rest, as the type of reserve duty described requires that the crewmember be available to fly, should the opportunity arise." Federal Aviation Decisions: Chief Counsel Opinions, Interpretation 1997-3, pp. I-130, I-131.

# 64 Fed. Reg. 32176 (1999).

# Aviators for Safe and Fairer Regulation, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration, 221 F.3d 222 (1st Cir. 2000).

# http://www.oalj.dol.gov/public/wblo...air21sec519.htm